Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Gareth

General Discussions on Brexit

Recommended Posts

On 20/03/2019 at 15:02, G4rth said:

If you go into supermarkets in Poole you'll see a lot of empty shelves in local Sainsburys not quite so bad in Tesco. M&S and Waitrose seem fine.Whether Sainsburys are feeling the start of the awaited brexit disaster, their customers are stockpiling or other supermarkets have been stockpiling goods themselves is anyone's guess.    

I go to the Pitwines Sainsbury’s in Poole, but have started going to the huge Alder Hills one, I get a lift over there and that is a vast store, not really noticed the shelves being empty in either, so maybe it is the smaller local outlets.  I am not stockpiling, cannoy be asked, I am just waiting to see how things go.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, richwarwicker said:

The Plymouth Heralds coverage of the protest made me smile. 

https://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/news/local-news/brexit-ferry-protest-plymouth-no-2677855

It is like a lot of these leave protests, that never amount to more than a handful despite threatening fire and brimstone. Farage’s recent rally attracted around 200 apparently.  Yesterday’s London gathering  shows that the remain side get the numbers and get themselves to where they say they will.  They are serious about what they are saying and putting their words into actions.  A lot of the leave protests and rallies tend to be loudly proclaimed that there will be hundred and thousands but more often than not they turn out to be a damp squib.  I would suggest that a lot of future leave protests mooted will turn out like Plymouth, they just cannot magic up the numbers.  We organised coachloads and coachloads.

Edited by Khaines
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is Brigitte they had the numbers the only time it mattered.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Giving this thread a bit of leeway to see whether it can police itself in observing the site “no politics” rule.  It may be that we end up needing to move the whole thread into the Brexit Club, but for now we’ll see how it goes. 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Solo said:

The thing is Brigitte they had the numbers the only time it mattered.

Exactly. Perhaps all those 'on the other side' were out at work, keeping the economony ticking over nicely, doing more productive things with their families, at sporting events or (I'd like to think) making a fortune selling cheap, knock-off EU flags to easily-led, desperate and democracy-rejecting shrub-stirrers (shrub being the 's' equivalent of tulip). 

There you go Gareth, harsh but in no way political. 😀 Ed. 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's long been a characteristic of the 'Left' that they march. No idea why, it seldom, if ever, results in a change to government policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Khaines said:

I go to the Pitwines Sainsbury’s in Poole, but have started going to the huge Alder Hills one, I get a lift over there and that is a vast store, not really noticed the shelves being empty in either, so maybe it is the smaller local outlets.  I am not stockpiling, cannoy be asked, I am just waiting to see how things go.  

I always go to Alder Hills so perhaps it's just to time of day I go. Friday about 17.00.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cabin-boy said:

Exactly. Perhaps all those 'on the other side' were out at work, keeping the economony ticking over nicely, doing more productive things with their families 

Or perhaps they no longer exist in the numbers they did nearly three years ago 😂

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

29 minutes ago, G4rth said:

Or perhaps they no longer exist in the numbers they did nearly three years ago 😂

Without being political, that thinking means we have to rerun every election how often? Every 3 years, 2 years or perhaps every year.  I voted remain, admittedly with a heavy heart, but once the vote was out, to me that was that.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Solo said:

The thing is Brigitte they had the numbers the only time it mattered.

It's almost three years since the referendum. Don't you feel it is too long ago to be relevent?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was too young to vote in the 1975 referendum.  Others took the decision for me, and the country was committed to EEC membership without me ever having a say.  No one suggested that, in the early 80s, when I attained voting age, there should be another referendum because voters who were too young to vote the first time were now eligible.  Was that a denial of democracy?

Had there been a referendum in the early 80s, should there have been another in the late 80s to cover the eventuality of some of us changing our minds?  Was the absence of a third referendum in, say, 1988, another denial of democracy?

How frequently do referendums have to be run to safeguard democracy?  Why has the idea that they should become a regular thing suddenly taken hold, and where does it end?  If the principle becomes established that referendums have to be re-run every few years in order to “preserve democracy” then no issues will ever get settled.  The whole premise behind the concept is self-evidently absurd to anyone who actually thinks about it.

I was 49 years old before I was ever given an electoral chance to have a say on EU membership.  That’s 31 years, spent of voting age, when I was never asked.  The idea that there may now be 18 year olds who were “denied a vote” is patronsing beyond belief in the context of the history of this whole matter.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Without being political, that thinking means we have to rerun every election how often? Every 3 years, 2 years or perhaps every year.  I voted remain, admittedly with a heavy heart, but once the vote was out, to me that was that.

True but general elections come along every 5 years or so which means you can turf one lot out and put another lot in and change policies. Brexit is pretty much for keeps and it didn't get a very big majority or make a convincing win with all the tomfoolery by politicians on both sides of the campaign. Personally I don't believe the whole thing had any real credibility.

And course while Mrs May and the Government seems to think it is fine to keep putting the current Brexit agreement proposals to a new vote, they throw up their hand in horror at the idea of letting the electorate do the same. A bit of double think there!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Addendum to my post above:  I do accept that there may be some valid arguments for a one-off supplementary referendum to the 2016 one.  (The notion, for example, of a “referendum on the deal”).  But the arguments that establish, when taken to their logical conclusion, a principle that referendums need to keep getting re-run in perpetuity (when we have been denied them all these years since we joined), seem hard to rationalise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, G4rth said:

I always go to Alder Hills so perhaps it's just to time of day I go. Friday about 17.00.

I am usually up there Thursday mornings between 10 - 11.30.  Depends, not every week, I rely on someone else to drive me and we go in the nearby MaccyD's for breakfast and if nice a stroll round the lake. 

The Maccy’s is a lot better than the one in Bournemouth town centre, not so intimidating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, cvabishop said:

True but general elections come along every 5 years or so which means you can turf one lot out and put another lot in and change policies. Brexit is pretty much for keeps and it didn't get a very big majority or make a convincing win with all the tomfoolery by politicians on both sides of the campaign. Personally I don't believe the whole thing had any real credibility.

And course while Mrs May and the Government seems to think it is fine to keep putting the current Brexit agreement proposals to a new vote, they throw up their hand in horror at the idea of letting the electorate do the same. A bit of double think there!

The referendum has never had any credibility as it was meant to be advisory but was then seized upon to be imposed on the British public.It seems to me that  some Brexiteers do not want at any costs that young voters who have not voted  are represented. Why not? It has all taken too long. A 16 year at the time of the last referendum(now nineteen) has no say in the future of his country......

Edited by imprimerie
  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would go further than that Gareth. I think referendums are intrinsically bad as they rarely seem to resolve the issue they were called for and simply create grief and unexpected consequences as we are now seeing. They are no substitute for good parliamentary democracy and informed debate (although that seems to be in danger itself now).

Referendums attempt to reduce complex issues down to simple black and white choices and really life ain't like that. Anyone who claims to have understood the ramifications of Brexit at the time the referendum was held is telling porkies, however much they might insist otherwise.

I voted remain, not because I thought Britain is better off inside the EU which is a seriously flawed institution but because my career experience clearly indicated to me that the process of extracting ourselves from such a complex embedded situation is likely to be ruinous in the short to medium term.

Had we never joined the EU the chances are that we might be doing OK in a different international structure but we will never know.

What I am rather depressingly certain of is that if we do leave without at least a decent deal then I shall probably be dead before the long term benefits (if any) become apparent.

Having travelled in a number of European countries over the years I do value being a European and if the EU had stuck with being a powerful trading association to mutual advantage instead of aspiring to a supra national federal empire I would have been quite happy with that. A view which I suspect may well be shared by an awful lot of EU citizens and which still may come about at some point given the rise of populism in member countries.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Solo said:

 

Without being political, that thinking means we have to rerun every election how often? Every 3 years, 2 years or perhaps every year.  I voted remain, admittedly with a heavy heart, but once the vote was out, to me that was that.

Actually before the Fixed Term Parliament Act 3 years six months to just over 4 years was about average for a parliamentary term

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, G4rth said:

Actually before the Fixed Term Parliament Act 3 years six months to just over 4 years was about average for a parliamentary term

Indeed.  Actually, I’m slightly susprised the FTPA has not been repealed yet. Will only be a matter of time, I’d have thought.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, cvabishop said:

They are no substitute for good parliamentary democracy and informed debate (although that seems to be in danger itself now).

 

Your right Colin but the current electoral system doesn't give us that. First past the post and the whipping system, we're all doomed I tell you.

We claim to be a modern democracy but we are renovating our debating chamber and still keeping the two major political parties two sword lengths apart and remaining in London.

 

Edited by G4rth
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that's another complication G4rth. You are correct.

First past the post doesn't give a true reflection of electorate wishes and makes it very difficult for new parties to gain a foothold in Parliament which is not democratic.

But on the other hand it does usually give one party a mandate to implement their policies without the problems of political gridlock such as you get in Italy where nothing ever gets done.

The safety valve is that if the winners screw up you can eject them at the next election. It's a difficult one and I don't know the answer.

One thing conspicuously lacking in the present situation is that Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition who are supposed to hold the Govenment to account are simply not doing their job, their leadership is simply taken up with petty party obsessions instead of helping to safeguard the interests of the country as a whole and in the process allowing the Conservatives to indulge their own party political priorities.

A plague on both their houses!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...